Posted on 10/11/2002 7:53:12 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I have just checked to find out what documents were filed in the US Supreme Court by Doug Forrester. The lamestream media has blown it, big time. So has the Court's Press Office. Forrester has NOT filed anything new in the Supreme Court this week. On the other hand, the case is still live.
Last week, Forrester filed TWO documents with the US SC. One was the Request for Emergency Relief (which was denied not by Justice Souter alone, but by the whole Court). The other, however, was a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is the standard request for the Court to take a case in due course.
Somewhere between Justice Souter's office and the Clerk's Office they LOST TRACK of the Petition for Cert. The Press Office released the FALSE information that only the Request for Emergency Relief had been filed. A lawyer for the National Republican Senatorial Court had to trot over to the Court and point out that there were TWO documents filed, not just one.
Late yesterday, the Court "FOUND" the Petition for Cert, which has NOT been acted upon. The Clerk docketed that paper. The press noticed the docketing, and assumed that Forrester had filed a new case. This was a false conclusion, based on the Court's Press Office getting things wrong at the beginning.
Bottom line: the status of this case in the Supreme Court is exactly what I surmised. The case is dead for emergency relief, but it is very much alive for decision in due course (meaning about eight months from now).
The US SC does not have a set deadline to decide whether to take any case. They certainly will not decide whether to take this one until they see the election results in New Jersey. If Forrester wins, I think it highly likely that four Justices will vote to take the case (that's all it takes), and that will be done. The case will be briefed, argued, and decided.
If Lautenberg wins, the Court will have painted itself into a corner. If they rule for Forrester, what is the remedy? Does the US SC dare issue an Order throwing out a Member of the Senate? To avoid embarrassing themselves, the Court would be unlikely to take the case in that situation.
What I have just said here is the plain unvarnished truth. Anything you read to the contrary in the lamestream media is hogwash. Trust me, I know these things.
Are you going to sue Simon out in California because he was stupid enough to shot himself in the foot the other day wasting all the time and effort and money of his contributors? No. No one has a guarantee of results. Contributors put up money and effort and takes their chance.
In a democratic republic, its a hard case to make that you as a candidate were harmed because citizens much preferred to vote for a different candidate.
The major point is that the NJ Supreme court usurped the NJ Legislative just powers.
Could be but the NJ Supreme Court merely says they have interpretated the law written by the legislature. Till you get SCOTUS to say otherwise, its the law.
Then what would happen--a special election before the new Senate is seated in January? That would mean that Forrester would have to run yet another race against possibly another candidate. Ugh.
I doubt if NJ Dems had a couple of months to line their ducks up, that they'd choose Lautenberg to run in that special election.
If Forrester doesn't win, no matter what happens afterward--it seems it would be grossly unfair to him.
I think this would be a positive development,but only if a post-election ruling had teeth to it.
If Lautenberg wins and is seated as a Senator despite the fact that the SCOTUS might rule the election invalid, that is no deterrent to others who might seek the same course of events as was sought in NJ.
But, if SCOTUS rules what the NJSC did was not a valid reading of the law and warns that forthwith, any state court that attempts to tamper with election laws will be slapped down immediately at the time of the infraction, then a service will have been done.
Are you going to sue Simon out in California because he was stupid enough to shot himself in the foot the other day wasting all the time and effort and money of his contributors? No. No one has a guarantee of results. Contributors put up money and effort and takes their chance.
The Legislature sets election laws to protect the voters. I showed how many of the NJ voters were harmed. Plus, the NJ voters have been harmed by the NJ Supreme Court usurping Legislative just power and undermining the just separation of powers. Your Simon argument is a false analogy. There's no law against spending money stupidly.
Could be but the NJ Supreme Court merely says they have interpretated the law written by the legislature. Till you get SCOTUS to say otherwise, its the law.
I don't have to get the US Supreme Court to say otherwise -- to preserve justice. For that is their -- the US Supreme Court Judges' -- responsibility. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that unjust law is upheld. I have made my stand for objective justice and objective law know, and you as well have made your stand known.
So, exactly as I said, and as the Supreme Court said as I requested in the Anderson case, THIS CASE REMAINS LIVE AFTER THE ELECTION.
Billybob
If you have any doubts on the subject, read the concurring opinion of the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas in Bush-Gore, Round II. They spell it out in plain English.
Billybob
Billybob
However, does anyone doubt that Lautenberg will not last long?
The power to be judge of elections is exactly analogous to the power of judges to be judges of the law - that is, the power to judge, based on established rules, not the power to make up new rules. Yes, just as judges get away with making up the law as they go (as SCONJ made clear to us recently), it may very well be that the Senate can do the same. On the other hand, I think there's precedent to suggest that the courts can still take notice if either house of Congress goes beyond its bounds in that regard.
There is however another equity involved--"sissor, paper, rock". In that game two players each hide their right hand and then simultaneously the two players reveal their right hands.In other words, viewed from the point of view of the political parties, the Democratic Party has seen that it has lost and, after the deadline for change, has switched from a losing strategy to a possibly winning one. It is patently unfair and, from Doug Forrester's perspective, an organized fraud against himself.A closed fist represents "rock,"The game is decided according to the rules:
a flat hand represents "paper," and
a v-for-victory finger configuration represents "sissors.""rock breaks sissiors"The Torricelli nomination should be viewed as "rock,"
"sissors cuts paper"
"paper covers rock"
The Forrester noimination should be viewed as "paper," and
The Loutenberg noimination should be viewed as "sissors" (at least old, rusty ones).
And it is on that basis that I can readily envision a civil suit against the Democratic Party, alledging that the money spent by the Forrester campaign was extracted on the basis of his being induced into a fraudulent contest. Even a suit for triple damages under RICO . . .
Had Torricelli not initially been the putative Democratic nominee, the Republican Party might perhaps have been able to nominate a "rock" who could have easily handled Lautenberg--but then, the switcheroo was done after the last minute . . .
If SCotUS is to decide the case after the election, it would seem that there should be a financial penalty exacted against the offenders sufficient to make any tempted to follow their example think twice. Otherwise, what's the point? If they think SCotUS will blink again . . .
If SCotUS finds against the Democrats I think they would at least have to award monetary damages to the Forrester campaign, and threaten to recognize future violations as a pattern under RICO. But then, I'm not a lawyer--I don't even play one on TV.
What can happen with a SCOTUS finding that the Constitution was violated by the Jersey Supreme Idiots is that should the Pubbies grow a backbone upon getting a majority, they could refuse to honor a Lautenberg election on the basis that the election was un-Constitutional. At that point, I honestly can't answer what would happen.
As you implied, it is too late for this SCOTUS to show that it has the guts to reign in a mobbed up and thoroughly corrupt state Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court made a purely political decision by refusing to grant emergency relief. This US Supreme Court simply did not have the fortitude and the integrity to rule against the scumbag Democrats two times in a row. They did not want a repeat of the catcalls and the irrational indignation that followed the Florida decision. So they took the easy way out and let the scumbags have one. How utterly disappointing. How utterly weak. And I am talking here about what? - - one or two justices? We already know who constitutes the scumbag contingent of the court - - so it had to be one or two of the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.